13520555 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2017)

Ex Parte Lyon

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 24, 2017

13520555 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/520,555 07/03/2012 Angus Rutherford Lyon 8622WOUS 7989 15815 7590 10/26/2017 The Mason Group Patent Specialists LLC 2300 McDermott Rd Suite 253 Plano, TX 75025 EXAMINER MARTINEZ BORRERO, LUIS A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3668 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/26/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): vdavis @ themasongroup. net info @ themasongroup .net t white @ themasongroup .net PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANGUS RUTHERFORD LYON Appeal 2016-006968 Application 13/520,5551 Technology Center 3600 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s second rejection of claims 1—10, all of the pending claims in the Application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. BACKGROUND The disclosed invention relates to a system for maneuvering a vehicle where a driver rotates a dial of a control device to cause a corresponding 1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is Protean Electric Limited. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-006968 Application 13/520,555 rotation of the vehicle wheels. Spec. 2:4—20, Abstract. The Specification explains: By correlating the rotation of a dial on a control device with the rotation of at least one of the wheels of the vehicle a user is able to move a vehicle accurately using a single control element, where the user is able to inch the vehicle forwards or backwards precisely by rotating the control element clockwise or anticlockwise according to the required direction of the vehicle. Spec. 2:14—20. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, reads as follows: 1. A control device for a vehicle, the control device comprising a rotational element and a position sensor for outputting a signal indicative of an angle that a wheel of a vehicle is to be rotated through, wherein rotation of the wheel causes movement of the vehicle a distance in a forward or backward direction, wherein the indicated angle is based on an angle that the rotational element is rotated through. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL AND APPLIED PRIOR ART Claims 1—6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Good et al. (US 4,735,274, iss. Apr. 5, 1988) and Sasajima et al. (US 2008/0154464 Al, pub. June 26, 2008). Claims 7—9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Good, Sasajima, and Taniguchi (US 2006/0151220, pub. July 13, 2006). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the arguments in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s Answer, and the Reply Brief. 2 Appeal 2016-006968 Application 13/520,555 Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of Examiner error. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below for emphasis. The Examiner finds that Good teaches, “a control element that senses angle position by a rotary position encoder, and its signal indicates a rotary position corresponding to the turning angle of the vehicle.” Ans. 4; see Non- Final Act.2 34 (citing Good, Fig. 1, 1:60-65). The Examiner further finds that the “turning angle sensor generates an actual turning angle signal which controls the wheel rotation of the vehicle.” Ans. 4 (citing Good, 4:42—58). The Examiner acknowledges that Good fails to disclose “wherein rotation of the wheel causes movement of the vehicle a distance in a forward or backward direction,” recited in claim 1. Non-Final Act. 5. For this limitation, the Examiner relies on Sasajima. See id. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Sasajima teaches “[t]he steering/movement controller performs a steering control with the steering device, a movement control for moving the vehicle forward or backward at a low speed, and a stop control for stopping the vehicle.” Non-Final Act. 5 (citing Sasajima 1 7); see Sasajima 8, 30, 97. The Examiner explains: [bjoth, Good and Sasajima, disclose elements of a vehicle control system that are linked to a steering mechanism capable to rotate the wheels, and at the same time, provide vehicle movement based on such rotation. Further, it is clear that control of a vehicle steering system can be linked and utilized by a separate component in the vehicle as long as such link of wheel angle control and movement control exist to provide the driver automatic response to a wheel angle turn. Ans. 5. 2 Non-Final Action mailed April 15, 2015. 3 Appeal 2016-006968 Application 13/520,555 Appellant argues that the combination of Good and Sasajima fails to teach “the control device comprising a rotational element and a position sensor for outputting a signal indicative of an angle that a wheel of a vehicle is to be rotated through, wherein rotation of the wheel causes movement of the vehicle a distance in a forward or backward direction.” App. Br. 10. Specifically, Appellant argues that Good discloses a parallel parking system that rotates wheels left or right using a steering valve in response to distance travelled by a vehicle (Good, 1:60-65) and Sasajima discloses an automatic parallel parking system using an electronic control unit that performs steering, movement, and stop control (Sasajima 127). See id. at 11. Appellants argue that although both Good and Sasajima disclose rotating wheels to effect a change in direction to the left or right, both fail to teach outputting a signal indicative of an angle that a wheel of a vehicle is to be rotated through, wherein rotation of the wheel causes movement in a forward or backward direction. See id. at 11—13. In other words, Appellants argue that neither Good nor Sasajima teaches or suggests outputting an angle, rotating a wheel through that angle, where that rotation moves the vehicle forward or backward. See id. Appellant’s argument is persuasive of Examiner error. The Examiner does not direct us to any disclosure in Good or Sasajima that teaches or suggests “the control device comprising a rotational element and a position sensor for outputting a signal indicative of an angle that a wheel of a vehicle is to be rotated through, wherein rotation of the wheel causes movement of the vehicle a distance in a forward or backward direction.'1'’ Claim 1 (emphasis added). The Examiner directs us to portions of Good and Sasajima that disclose outputting an angle, turning wheels to the outputted 4 Appeal 2016-006968 Application 13/520,555 angle in a left or right direction with respect to the vehicle body, and otherwise rotating the wheels to effect forward or backward motion. See Ans. 3—5 (citing Good, 4:42—58, 6:20-30, Fig. 1; Sasajima H 7, 9, 11, 30, Fig. 8). However, the Examiner does not sufficiently explain how Good or Sasajima teaches or suggests outputting a signal indicative of an angle that a wheel of a vehicle is to be rotated through, wherein the rotation of the wheel causes movement of the vehicle a distance in a forward or backward direction. See App. Br. 11—13. For these reasons, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of independent claim 1, independent claim 5, which recites limitations similar to claim 1, and dependent claims 2-4 and 10 as unpatentable over Good and Sasajima. As applied by the Examiner, the teachings of Taniguchi do not remedy the deficiencies of Good and Sasajima. See Non-Final Act. 11—14. Accordingly, we also are constrained to reverse the rejection of dependent claims 7—9 as unpatentable over Good, Sasajima, and Taniguchi. DECISION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1—10. REVERSED 5